Certain movies cannot be reviewed
indifferently. The critics simply have too much invested in their
directors to acknowledge that, past performances to the contrary
nothwithstanding, their latest effort has to rank somewhere between a
disappointment and a disaster. Such is the case with Paul Thomas
Anderson’s “The Master.”
His previous films, which include “Boogie Nights,” “Magnolia” and the
terrific “There Will Be Blood,” gave reason to hope that Anderson, still
in his early 40s, was the major young talent that American movies have
been yearning for (seemingly for decades). There is no reason to abandon
that hope now. But the fact remains that “The Master” is an inert film,
and that the chief pleasure it affords is watching it make the
reviewers squirm. They say all the right, respectful things
about it—at some level they are greeting it as a masterwork and there
are plenty of pull quotes in their prose—but there is something dutiful
in their work, too. Their hearts aren’t really in the job, and one
sometimes gets the feeling that may be true of Anderson’s as well—that
his perfectly all right, but not highly original, idea dies as he
struggles with it.

Because of Magnolia, Boogie Nights and There Will Be Blood, I went to see The Master this weekend. What a disappointment. Maybe in ten years, I'll look at it again and see things I'm not seeing now but I felt nothing watching the film. I felt like he was going through the motions and roughly jerking me along.I had so many hopes for that film. I got a group of friends together and we were going to have a fun night and instead it was just . . . really dull.And we spent 3 hours after the movie trying to figure out what the f**k went wrong?Paul Thomas Anderson's strong enough as a director that I will allow I could have missed the point. And, ten years from now, I may end up loving it if I see it again. But it did nothing for me tonight. Nothing at all.Even Joaquin Phoenix didn't manage to put the film over. (Philip Seymour Hoffman was his usual pompous self.) I liked the review because it didn't just express what I felt (though it did express that), I liked it because the reviewer wasn't afraid to take on the critics and the critical uplifting and praise that might be distorting the film now. Richard Schickel used to review films for Time, by the way.

Starting wih war resistance.
Kimberly Rivera and her family (husband and two kids) went to Canada in
early 2007 with only what they could carry on their small family car.
She was on leave from Iraq and horrified by what she saw while serving.
Already a believer in Jesus Christ when she deployed, the horror
deepened her spirituality and her conviction to do the Lord's work as
she understood it.

What happened to her is no uncommon. Agustin
Aguayo also was a practicing Christian when he deployed to Iraq.
Seeing war up close deepened his own faith and religious beliefs. That
is why he stopped carrying a loaded gun while deployed in Iraq and why
he found he could no longer participate in the Iraq War.

Faith.
like any relationship, is not static nor is it taught to be. Regardless
of the religion, there is the belief that, for example, in times of
crisis, the power of religion can carry you through the experience
when you could not make it through on your own. (Hence the modern day
parable of the two sets of footsteps in the sand that becomes one as
your higher power carries you in the darkest of times.) Faith is not
stagnant which is why religious scholars spend so much time pursuing
knowledge, why followers do not attend one service their entire life but
continue to attend to deepen their understanding and beliefs.

Kim
and Agustin's experiences are in keeping with their religions which do
allow for faith to grow and deepen. The US military has refused to
recognize that and has found itself in the questionable (legally
questionable) position of interpreting faith and judging faith. The US
military will not allow an Agustin Aguayo or Kim Rivera to become a
conscientious objector, they will argue that they were practicing a
religion when they went to Iraq and that if they had objections they
should have been lodged prior to deployment. (Lodging the objection
prior to deployment, to be clear, does not mean someone will get C.O.
status.) They will refuse to recognize that faith and spirituality are
not fixed and that they can grow and deepen over time and due to
experience.

She is now threatened with expulsion. The Canadian government wants her out of the country by September 20th. August 31st, Kim took part in a press conference with War Resisters Support Campaign's Michelle Robidoux.

Kim
Rivera: If you want to know my biggest fear is being separated from my
children and having to -- having to sit in a prison for politically
being against the war in Iraq which I had experience in. Without that
experience, I know that I would not have come to the decision I had made
to leave and also be here in Canada for people to know that experience
which I had spoken many of. So the only thing that I guess I can really
ask is that all of my legal applications that I applied be considered
and my agency application also get a decision. That's pretty much all I
have.

But
those who were called to fight this war believed what their leaders had
told them. The reason we know this is because U.S. soldiers such as
Kimberly Rivera, through her own experience in Iraq, came to the
conclusion that the invasion had nothing to do with weapons of mass
destruction. Indeed, the presence of U.S. forces only created immense
misery for civilians and soldiers alike.

Those
leaders to whom soldiers such as Kimberly Rivera looked for answers
failed a supreme moral test. More than 110,000 Iraqis have died in the
conflict since 2003, millions have been displaced and nearly 4,500
American soldiers have been killed.

There
are many people who, while they may have believed the original
justification for the war, came to a different conclusion as the reality
of the war became more evident. Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself
came to the conclusion that the Iraq war was "absolutely an error."

It
is large-hearted and courageous people who are not diminished by
saying: "I made a mistake." Not least among these are Ms. Rivera and the
other American war resisters who determined they could not in good
conscience continue to be part of the Iraq war.

Hopefully other voices will join Archbishop Tutu in calling for the Canadian government to allow Kim and her family to stay.

Soledad
O'Brien: So let's talk about that last line. "What we saw this week is
in may ways a logical result of all of that." Are you saying that the
president is responsible and his policies responsible for the death of
the American ambassador to Libya?

US
House Rep Peter King: I'm saying the president's policies have sent a
confused message. For instance, take Egypt. Here is a country getting
$1.6 billion in aid annually from the United States. Yet President
Morsi for the first day, the entire day of our embassy being under
attack, did virtually nothing to protect us and was actually putting out
statements in Arabic where he was sympathizing with the demonstrators
and those attacking the American embassy. What it's done is it's
created a climate, it's created an attitude in the Middle East where our
allies don't trust us, where those who are undecided are starting to
hedge their bets and turn against us. For instance in Iraq, the
president talks about how he pulled our troops out of Iraq. The fact is
he was given a glide path in Iraq. He pulled the troops out without
getting a Status Of Forces Agreement, without leaving any American
troops behind and now Iran is emerging as a major power in that region
whereas if we had our troops there it would not happen.

Soledad
O'Brien: But you-you've been talking about an apology tour. As you
know that matches the framing of other people. Donald Rumsfeld says
he's made a practice of trying to apologize for America, he's talking
about the president. Mitt Romney has said "I will not and never
apologize for America. I don't apologize for America." Tim Palwenty
back in February was saying, "Mr. President, stop apologizing for -- "
Where do you see an apology? You called it an apology tour. You said
the apologies. What apologies are you specifically talking about?

US
House Rep Peter King: I would say when he was in Cairo in 2009, when he
was basically apologizing for American policies, saying American
policies sometimes have gone too far --

Soledad
O'Brien: Never once in that speeh, as you know, which I have the speech
right here. That was -- he never once used the word apology. He never
once said I'm sorry.

US
House Rep Peter King: Didn't have to. The logical -- any logical
reading of the speech or the speech he gave in France where he basically
said that the United States can be too aggressive --

Soledad
cuts him off again. What she needs to do is cut off that hair. (When
you have circles and bags under the eyes, do not wear your hair long
unless you're pulling it back. The goal with bags and circles is never
to create more shadows on the face. What an idiot.)

This
is not complicated. Soledad, using faux-gressiver terms like
"framework" (the journalist term is "narrative"), may indicate some
cabal but Donald Rumsfeld and King honestly believe what they're
saying. I would assume the same for Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty as
well but with Rumsfeld and King there is a long body of the critique.
It predates Barack Obama and if Soledad thinks she's up to a 'fact
check,' she needs to educate herself on this.

To
move to a different topic but to explain the larger point,
then-President Ronald Reagan supported SDI (Strategic Defense
Initiative). I didn't. I thought it was a lunatic idea, I thought it
militarized space, etc. Ronald Reagan had one opinion, I had another.
By Soledad's 'understaning,' she can fact check that and determine one
of us to be right. She is an uneducated lunatic. Ronald Reagan
believed he was right about SDI, I believe I am right. Those are
opinions. They don't go to fact check.

I
bring up SDI specifically because Soledad wants to treat King's
statements as something she's never before encountered. (Maybe she
hasn't. She's not that smart.) But his statements are at the heart of
modern day conservatism and Barack's approach is in stark contrast to
Reagan (Reagan remains the hero of most modern day conservatives). You
can read the SDI speech and you can see a lot of what's being discussed by King and others in that speech. Here's an excerpt:

President
Ronald Reagan: The defense policy of the United States is based on a
simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never
be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend
against aggression - to preserve freedom and peace.

Since
the dawn of the atomic age, we have sought to reduce the risk of war by
maintaining a strong deterrent and by seeking genuine arms control.
Deterrence means simply this: Making sure any adversary who thinks about
attacking the United States or our allies or our vital interests
concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he
understands that, he won't attack. We maintain the peace through our
strength; weakness only invites aggression.

I
disagree with those opinions (including the claim that the US doesn't
start fights). And I can argue with someone who holds those opinions.
But I recognize those to be opinions. Not facts. It's an ideology. If
this is so far above Soledad's head, CNN needs to send her to a college
where she can hopefully learn. And I'll go further, if EJ Dionne, an
opinion columnist, wanted to call the conservative opinion "wrong,"
that's fine. He's an opinion columnist. Soledad is supposed to be
objective. That makes her performance today even more embarrassing.

Sunday, Ava and I wrote "TV: Media Fail" and it was about the media's refusal to play fair. Jim did a quick piece that bookends that with "Romney and Obama last week"
and, though we answered his questions in that, Ava and I were both
confused why he wanted that. He's getting at the points above. It is
not fair for Soledad to pretend to be 'objective' and then treat a
conservative ideology to a 'fact check.' It's about the same as putting
religious beliefs to a 'fact check.' Beliefs and opinions can differ
and, in fact, in a democracy are supposed to. You may not like the
conclusions someone forms based on the facts, but they are allowed to
reach their own conclusions.

Karl Rove wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal,
published in April of 2009, about what he termed Barack's "apology
tour." He wasn't the only one using that term at that time. Click here for a video about the "apology tour"
that was posted to YouTube April 32, 2009. For Soledad to be ignorant
of all of this is an insult to the viewers. Her segment was an insult.
If she wants to debate ideology, fine, let her take a stand -- and
state whether it's her own or that she's playing devil's advocate -- and
have that discussion. But don't pretend that she's dealing with
facts. And don't pretend that we (on the left) win when some journalist
plays America dumb by acting as if ideology and belief can be put to a
fact check. CNN should be ashamed of themselves.

These
are serious issues and if Soledad O'Brien's not up for them, she needs
to be pulled. If it's still not clear, let's look at King's remarks on
Iraq.

US House Rep Peter King: For
instance in Iraq, the president talks about how he pulled our troops out
of Iraq. The fact is he was given a glide path in Iraq. He pulled the
troops out without getting a Status Of Forces Agreement, without leaving
any American troops behind and now Iran is emerging as a major power in
that region whereas if we had our troops there it would not happen.

Barack
pulled US troops from Iraq? That's a fact. Removed them without a
SOFA? Fact. King takes those facts, places them in his conservative
framework and comes up with opinions ("glide path" and the US left in a
position of weakness). So-called objective journalists need to learn to
do their job. Media Matters, as this item demonstrates,
does a better job of grasping the points about ideology and opinion,
that Soledad O'Brien refuses to -- and Media Matters doesn't claim to be
objective or impartial -- it is a left-wing organization.

The third week of this month has begun and, through Saturday, Iraq Body Counts
counts 183 people dead so far this month as a result of violence. And
the violence continues today with a high-profile Baghdad bombing. KUNA explains,
"The blast is considered of some significance for it targeted the
heavily-guarded location [Green Zone], where senior officials reside.
The zone also includes a number of government, diplomatic and security
offices and departments." Xinhua reports that 7 people are dead and twenty-four injured from the "suicide car bomb attack near an entrance of Baghdad Green Zone." Al-Shorfa notes that the death toll has risen to 8. AP reports the "bomber slammed a car packed with explosives into one of the [Green Zone] gates." AFP adds,
"The attacker drove up to the entrance situated at the July 14 bridge,
which is manned by Iraqi soldiers and lies across the Tigris River from
the Green Zone, before detonating an explosives-rigged vehicle, an
interior ministry official said." Kareem Raheem (Reuters) quotes
an unnamed police officer stating, "Cars were lining up waiting to be
searched at the checkpoint that leads to the Green Zone and suddenly a
speeding car exploded nearby. Some people died inside cars and I saw
two soldiers lying on the ground. We immediately closed the area." Adrian Blomfield (Telegraph of London) observes,
"The bombing was reminiscent of the violence that regularly targeted
the Green Zone when it served as the American administrative
headquarters in the years following the invasion that toppled Saddam
Hussein in 2003." In addition, Alsumaria reports a mortar attack on a Mosul police station has left one police officer and two civilians injured.

Meanwhile RTT News reports,
"Deadly clashes between Turkish security forces and activists of the
outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) have left 42 people dead during
the weekend, Turkish media reported citing officials. " The PKK is a
Kurdish group which fights for Kurdish independence. Aaron Hess (International Socialist Review) described the PKK in 2008,
"The PKK emerged in 1984 as a major force in response to Turkey's
oppression of its Kurdish population. Since the late 1970s, Turkey has
waged a relentless war of attrition that has killed tens of thousands of
Kurds and driven millions from their homes. The Kurds are the world's
largest stateless population -- whose main population concentration
straddles Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria -- and have been the victims of
imperialist wars and manipulation since the colonial period. While
Turkey has granted limited rights to the Kurds in recent years in order
to accommodate the European Union, which it seeks to join, even these
are now at risk." Suzan Fraser (AP) reports
that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan today echoed his "call
on the rebel group to lay down arms. Erdogan said military offensives
against the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, would end only
after the rebels lay down arms." In response, Reuters notes,
"Turkey's main Kurdish party said on Monday that Turkey must agree a
mutual ceasefire with Kurdish separatists to have any hope of ending
their conflict, rather than making one-sided demands that they disarm."

Yesterday, the US State Dept issued the following statement:Today,
the seventh convoy of approximately 680 Camp Ashraf residents arrived
safely at Camp Hurriya. This convoy represents the last major relocation
of residents from former Camp Ashraf to Camp Hurriya and marks a
significant milestone in efforts to achieve a sustainable humanitarian
solution to this issue. Over the coming weeks, the small group
temporarily remaining at former Camp Ashraf will address residual issues
and then also move to Camp Hurriya.

The United States
appreciates the efforts of the Government of Iraq to accommodate both
security and humanitarian concerns throughout this process, including
the peaceful and orderly closure of former Camp Ashraf and relocation of
its residents to Camp Hurriya. We count on Iraq's continued adherence
to the December 25, 2011 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the
United Nations that provides a path for the safe relocation of former
Ashraf residents out of Iraq.We welcome the cooperation by the
former Ashraf residents in this relocation and look forward to their
continued participation in the process set forth in the MOU.
Additionally, we are grateful for the work of the United Nations
Assistance Mission in Iraq and United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees, whose personnel have achieved much under challenging
circumstances.

The United States will continue to support those
efforts and, working with the United Nations and our partners in the
international community, turn our attention to supporting the permanent
relocation of the residents from Iraq.

Approximately
3,400 people were at Camp Ashraf when the US invaded Iraq in 2003.
They were Iranian dissidents who were given asylum by Saddam Hussein
decades ago. The US government authorized the US military to negotiate
with the residents. The US military was able to get the residents to
agree to disarm and they became protected persons under Geneva and under
international law.

Despite that legal status and the the legal
obligation on the part of the US government to protect the residents,
since Barack Obama has been sworn in as US president, Nouri has ordered
not one but two attacks on Camp Ashraf resulting in multiple deaths.
Let's recap. July 28, 2009
Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer
entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents,"
Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on
28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least
nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six
residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They
were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor
health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011,
Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault
took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way,
"Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within
the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who
tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the
operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more
than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other
protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a
committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on
other occasions when the government has announced investigations into
allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the
authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions
whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observes
that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of
Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva
Conventions."

Of yesterday's relocations, Martin Kobler, the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative to Iraq, declared yesterday,
'This is an important step as we near the end of the relocation
process. I would like to thank the residents for their cooperation. I
would also like to thank the Government of Iraq for ensuring this last
major relocation and paving the way for the peaceful closure of Camp
Ashraf under the terms of the memorandum of understanding." Press TV (link is text and video) notes that 168 residents remain at Camp Ashraf. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reminds,
"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is under a court order to decide by
October 1 whether to remove MEK from the terror list. The secretay has
said several times that her decision would be guided, in part, by
whether the group moves peacefully from Camp Ashraf."

Now for this:

The
arrest warrant was issued on Dec. 19, just after I arrived in Erbil. I
was very surprised. I was shocked that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki had issued such a warrant. He needs to consult with the
president, if there is any proof. I have legal immunity granted by the
constitution, yet they ignored this legal provision. They went so far as
to issue a death sentence.
The surprising part about this incident is its timing. This verdict
came on September 9. They dismissed the previous judge and appointed a
new one. This was the first trial conducted by the newly appointed
judge. Here we are talking about a judge who is not familiar with
details of the case. They reached a verdict within less than 24 hours.
There was not even time for defense.

The
political crisis was already well in effect when December 2011 rolled
around. The press rarely gets that fact correct. When December 2011
rolls around you see Iraqiya announce a boycott of the council and the
Parliament, that's in the December 16th snapshot and again in a December 17th entry
. Tareq al-Hashemi is a member of Iraqiya but he's not in the news at
that point. Later, we'll learn that Nouri -- just returned from DC
where he met with Barack Obama -- has ordered tanks to surround the
homes of high ranking members of Iraqiya. December 18th
is when al-Hashemi and Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq are pulled
from a Baghdad flight to the KRG but then allowed to reboard the plane.
December 19th is when the arrest warrant is issued for Tareq al-Hashemi by Nouri al-Maliki who claims the vice president is a 'terrorist.' .

Tareq
al-Hashemi knows the chronology because it's his life. We know it
because we followed it. Why is it that employees of Reuters, AP and the
rest -- people paid to do a job -- don't get it right? Why is that
they are allowed repeatedly to rewrite history and FALSELY claim that
Tareq left Baghdad after a warrant was issued?

The
problem with Iraq is Maliki's style of governing. I don't agree with
him on economic concerns or on political processes. The administrative
council, president and vice president work as a team. However, we could
not work together, as Maliki had different desires. He believes in
tyranny, not in democracy. I tried to convince him many times ... to be
more just and stand against discrimination. Since 2006, Iraq has steered
away from democracy and is turning into an autocracy. I was against
this happening.

Iraq had a great
opportunity. We had the chance to hold the presidency of the Arab League
for a year. However, when the summit ended, Maliki went against the
will of the participants and supported Assad.

As the political crisis continues, Raman Brosk (AKnews) reports,
"The Kurdish Blocs Coalition (KBC) is hoping that President of Iraq
Jalal Talabani will put an end to months of disputes between Baghdad and
Erbil upon his return from Germany where he is receiving treatmeant
after his health deteriorated." He fled to Germany after he betrayed
the other blocs working on the no-confidence vote. From his 'sick bed'
in Germany (he had knee surgery), he threatened to resign as president.
But a lot of people are pinning their hopes on him. Dar Addustour notes
that ahead of Talabani's return, KRG President Massoud Barzani has
departed for a tour of Europe where he'll meet with various leaders.

Alsumaria notes
the incoming 8 Independent High Electoral Commission members include:
Mohsen Jabbari Mohsen, Wael Mohamed Abd Ali, Moqdad Hassan Saleh, Safaa
Ibrahim Jassim al-Hassan, Aboert Bunnell al-Alalah, Khan Kamal Ali. All Iraq News adds
that Kolshan al-Kamal was nominated but the vote on al-Kamal has been
postponed due to objections from the Christian MPs. The Commission is
supposed to have 9 members and, at present, the hope is that the ninth
member will be voted on shortly. AFP explains,

"The
new commission may have to contend with political pressure in addition
to the challenges of organising elections, including local polls that
are to be held next March.

Faraj al-Haidari,
the outgoing head of IHEC, said in late August that he and two other
members were found guilty of graft and handed suspended one-year prison
sentences."

Mohammad Sabah (Al Mada) also reports
on Parliament, specifically the body's Integrity Commission which has
called for all Iraqi ministers and deputy ministers, deputies and
advisers who hold dual nationality to drop the non-Iraqi nationality.
Why is this a concern?

In a government of refugees, you have many
people with other nationalities. And when people leave with government
money -- as 7 officials in Nouri's last government did -- it can be
very difficult to have them extradicted from another country if they
hold citizenship in that country.

Over the weekend, Iraq had a high profile visitor. Saturday, Al Mada reported that UN Special Envoy on Refugee Issues and Academy Award winning Angelina Jolie
visited Iraq today as part of the UN efforts for Syrian refugees. The
American actress will visit Dohuk Province and met with refugees at the
camp there. Dohuk and Anbar Province house approximatley 21,000 Syrian
refugees. Angelina met with Iraq's Minister of Foreign Affairs Hoshyar
Zebari. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) adds,
"Jolie and Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari discussed the situation of
Syrian refugees in Iraq while meeting at his office in Baghdad, the
foreign ministry said in a statement. They also talked about the efforts
made by the Iraqi government to meet the daily needs of refugees, the
statement said."

RTT News notes
this is Jolie's fourth trip to Iraq and "Jolie spent Sunday meeting
with Syrian refugees in the Domiz camp in northern Iraq. She also met
officials of the Kurdistan regional government, including the Prime
Minister, the Interior Minister and the Governor of Dohuk. Many of the
officials she met were former refugees." The Voice of Russia notes that in addition to visiting Iraq, she also toured "refugee camps in Jordan and Turkey." Sowetan's report includes:

"What
they described on the ground, hearing it from them is so horrific," she
said, adding that the children's stories were especially moving,
including some who said they had witnessed people being pulled apart
"like chickens.""When you meet so many innocent people and
civilians, the people of Syria are asking who is on their side. 'Who is
going to help us as the months go on?" she added.

Approximately
two-thirds of the Syrian refugees in Iraq who are registered with the
United Nations are in the KRG. Despite this fact, All Iraq News reports that the KRG has received zero in financial support for the refugees from the Iraqi central government out of Baghdad. AFP quotes
her stating at the Dohuk refugee camp Domiz, "I know how gracious the
Kurdish government and the Kurdish region people have been to the Syrian
refugees." AFP also quotes
her stating at Dohuk, "I have been to the four borders of Syria, and
this is the first camp I have been to where they are already preparing
for winterisation, and also where there are ID cards, giving freedom of
movment, which is an extraordinary thing." AKI quotes
her stating, "At this juncture, it is critical that Iraq receives
urgent international support and continues to welcome refugees across
its borders." The KRG issued the following on her visit:

Erbil,
Kurdistan Region - Iraq (KRG.org) – Angelina Jolie, the Special Envoy
for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, travelled to the Kurdistan
Region today to visit refugees in camps along the Syrian border and to
discuss with Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani the help provided by the
Kurdistan Regional Government.

Ms
Jolie this morning met some of the 21,000 Syrian refugees that have
taken shelter in camps in Duhok province before travelling to Erbil to
meet Prime Minister Barzani who welcomed Ms Jolie to Kurdistan and
thanked her for drawing attention to the plight of the refugees.

Citing
the $10million allocated by the KRG to provide for the needs of the
refugees, the Prime Minister said, "We have not received any support
from Baghdad, but of course this has not caused us to delay our aid.
Instead of waiting for the support of the Federal Government, we have
provided immediate assistance to those who have sought shelter with us."

Ms
Jolie thanked the Prime Minster and the KRG for the help they are
providing and expressed her hope that the international community will
begin partnering with the Region in these efforts.

The
Prime Minister detailed the aid being provided to the refugees,
explaining that the KRG is providing food, shelter, healthcare, and
emergency aid, as well as developing an educational programme that will
soon be implemented to allow the children to keep up with their studies.
They also discussed the situation in the other camps that Ms Jolie had
visited in her role as UN ambassador.

Ms
Jolie arrived in Kurdistan today after meeting with Iraqi returnees
from Syria and senior government officials in Baghdad on Saturday. Her
visit is part of a larger regional tour of camps in Iraq, Turkey, Jordan
and Lebanon for Syrians who have been displaced by the violence in the
country.

In
April 2012, Ms Jolie was appointed Special Envoy of the UNHCR, before
which she served for several years as a Goodwill Ambassador for the
UNHCR. The famous Hollywood actress has been a very strong public
advocate for human rights.

Alsumaria notes
her previous visits to Iraq as a United Nations Goodwill Ambassador and
that she's alos visited refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanaon and Turkey to
bring a spotlight to the refugee issue and, with regards to Syrian
refugees only, Kitabat notes she has visited camps in Lebanon and Jordan. AFP reports she travels next to Erbil and will visit Dohuk's refugee camp.

Alsumaria notes
her previous visits to Iraq as a United Nations Goodwill Ambassador and
that she's alos visited refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanaon and Turkey to
bring a spotlight to the refugee issue and, with regards to Syrian
refugees only, Kitabat notes she has visited camps in Lebanon and Jordan. AFP reports she travels next to Erbil and will visit Dohuk's refugee camp.